younger1

<p>This is the latest video from one of my favorite YouTubers (That's a word, right?), Captain Disillusion. He has his own inimitable style of debunking fake videos. This one was of a UFO. Check it/him out.<br /><br />

<p>eye of the beholder</p> <p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9hrPBMqJNsk/VoRQ6JKSQ4I/AAAAAAAAIqY/tox2QgkWtlk/s512-Ic42/2015-12-30_164346.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The streamlined Tatras in the 1930s were pretty cool. This is the 87 from 1936.<br> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Tatra_87-old.jpg</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=566342">Glenn McCreery</a>, thank you for tracking that down! I obviously didn't use the right search terms.</p>

<p>I looked for info re the camera's specs but didn't see anything useful. The manual is here: http://images.reconyx.com/file/HyperFireManual.pdf</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a>, you shouldn't assume. I'm not in the habit of stating conjecture as fact. It would be more helpful if you just ask.<br> <br />Here's the sequence on Dr. O'Connor's website:<br> <br />http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/update-another-invitation-to-the-star-visitors/<br /><br />I see no persuasive evidence of a light source on the left. My preferred explanation at the moment is that the flare caused an internal reflection that was doubled in the smaller "object." That maybe it's not just a coincidence that these things look like lenses.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a>, The problem with the balloon hypothesis, or anything moving at similar speed, is that the objects appear as such in only one frame in the sequence. They're not there a second before or a second afterwards.</p>

<p>I was just given a link to the full image. I was wrong. That was a cropped version. It's here:<br /><br />http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg<br> Does that put both the objects and the clouds within the same plausible DOF?</p>

<p>And by "weird" I don't mean alien or supernatural.</p>

<p>Alan, he was trying to capture a photo of a UFO. There's a news article being passed around from site to site (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/23/ufo-captured-man-says-he-has-proof/77857852/). I assume that's the full image. It's described as the one image out of more than a quarter million whee he finally captured what he was trying to. As far as I'm concerned that's way more than enough opportunity for some really weird things to appear by chance. I also found this article that mentions him (if anyone's all that curious): http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/close-encounters/Content?oid=2064634&storyPage=2</p>

<p>Glenn, thank you for your thoughts. </p>

<p>I found this and shared it. It makes it sound damned near impossible with that equipment. Does it win the argument? Maybe. But I'm not absolutelysure. But he does sound like he knows what he's talking about though.<br /><br />https://smokephotographist.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/how-to-photograph-rain-stop-motion-without-flash-and-neglecting-air-resistance-hehehehe-16-2/<br> The camera was pointed at the sky. I believe that the "objects" only appear in one frame. Images were taken one second apart.<br /><br />This is the biggest version I could find. It includes EXIF info.<br /><br />http://www.mufoncms.com/files_jeud8334j/72570_submitter_file6__JAMLUFOEnlarged.jpg</p>

<p>Here's a diagram from NASA. But there's a lot of variability.<br> <img src="http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/rain-drop-shape-diagram_1.gif" alt="" /></p> <p>The guy I was debating this with offered this image, which I didn't find too compelling.<br /><br /><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/21/article-1201154-05CA69ED000005DC-732_306x326.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I wouldn't mind "losing," <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=251643">Gerry Siegel</a>. If it really is a raindrop I'd like to know. It just looks tioo lenticularly symmetrical to me. It doesn't match any of the other images of stop motion raindrops I found. I'd expect one to be more flattened at the bottom. And I'm not sure that at ISO 50 and without flash you could capture one even at that shutter speed. But I could definitely be wrong. <br /><br /><br> Of course it's not a spaceship!</p>

<blockquote> <p>A UFO "researcher" is claiming that the lenticular "object" in this image is an alien craft of some kind. I'm looking for a rational explanation. I've been arguing with someone who's been trying to convince me that it's probably a raindrop. I don't think so.<br /><br />Here's the deal. This was taken with a trail cam, albeit an expensive one, but still a trail cam -- 3.1 megapixels, at 1/2880 sec, ISO 50, no flash.<br /><br />It's too symmetrical and doesn't match any other image of a raindrop I've yet found. I'm thinking either insect, bird, something on the lens or some kind of lens flare. The smaller spot above has me a bit confused.<br /><br />Insights? Opinions?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.mufoncms.com/files_jeud8334j/72570_submitter_file6__JAMLUFOEnlarged.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1536" /></p> <p> </p> </blockquote><div></div>